The Loss Of Collective Barganing Hurts Teacher Retention. And Student Academic Achievement.

Its been six years since Wisconsin eliminated collective bargaining rights for civil servants, known as Act 10.  This included teachers, and it has resulted in significant changes to teacher recruitment and retention throughout the state.  Here are some of the findings.

Benefits Drop:
Teachers saw a sharp drop in benefits, averaging 21%.  This includes Health Care and Pensions.  The reduction in benefits has also affected school districts to attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession.

Teacher Salaries Less:
Since the passage of Act 10, the average medium teacher salary has been reduced by 2.6%  In rural areas the low teacher salaries has experienced an outflow of new teachers with 25% leaving the district within five years.

Teachers Leaving The Profession:
Before the passage of Act 10, the average rate of teachers leaving the profession was 6.4%.  Since Act 10's passage the average leave rate is 8.8%.  The result is a less experienced teaching staff for many school districts.

Teachers Jumping To Other School Districts:
Before the passage of Act 10, teachers transferring between once school district to another was only 1.3%.  Since Act 10's passage the transfer rate has shot up to 3.4%, a 262% increase!  The result is that poorer and rural school districts quickly lose their best teachers to richer and suburban school districts who can offer more money and better benefits.

Union Representation Decreasing:
In 2011, before the passage of Act 10, the union participation rate was 16.1% in 2016 it has decreased to only 9%   Wisconsin has become a "right to work state" and unions are struggling to stay relevant.

Student Academic Achievement Hurt: 
A study has shown that the loss of teacher collective bargaining rights have affected student academic achievement.  Chalkbeat published the report and can be found Here.  The reduction was more significant in low achieving schools in poor urban and rural areas who are having trouble retaining teachers.


In the years since Act 10 passed, Brey said her union has adapted by becoming more active on the local level, and offering more training and other services to make membership more appealing for teachers.

Our Disconnected Union Leadership:
You would think with the almost certain elimination of dues checkoff for unions, starting the next school year, our union would be trying to reach out to the members by being proactive.  Like eliminating Fair Student Funding, The ending of the ATR pool by placing all excessed teachers in vacancies in their district before other teachers can be hired.  Push to remove vindictive principals, and remove Charlotte Danielson as a rubric for teacher evaluation. Instead, our disconnected union leadership ignores the opposition at the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly and vote, based on the leadership's wishes and not what's best for the members.

I would not be surprised that the union will see a vast reduction in dues collected , maybe over a 50% reduction and all ATRs will no longer pay the dues since they and we feel unrepresented.

Teacher Turnover Is Higher At The Renewal Schools Than For The Rest Of The City.

A union investigation of teacher turnover rates for the two year period between October 2014 and October 2016 shows a much higher teacher turnover rates at the Renewal Schools than for the New York City Public Schools teacher turnover rate

The UFT report found that for the 78 Renewal Schools investigated, the average teacher turnover rate for the two years was 40%, compared to a 23% for all public schools.  The report was summarized in Chalkbeat and found the following factors that contributed to the high teacher turnover rates at the Renewal Schools.

• Difficult;t teaching conditions
• Intense pressure to show academic achievement.
• Unstable and poor school administrative leadership.
• Sagging enrollment.
• Low teacher morale
• Poor academic performance.of the mostly level 1 student body.

Here are just two examples.  The first being August Martin High School that saw 90% of the teachers at the school in 2014 are gone by 2016.  Most of the teachers left or weren't rehired when the school was forced to have their teaching staff reapply for their positions at the school.  The second example is Flushing High School that had seven, yes seven principals in eight years?  Talk about an unstable and poorly performing administration. This Spring both Flushing High School and DeWitt Clinton High School will join 8 other Renewal Schools who are forcing their teaching staff to reapply for their jobs.

Of the 73 Renewal Schools investigated, 50 of the schools had a two year teacher turnover rate of 33% or greater  Add that to a mostly "newbie" teaching staff. who have a steep learning curve to become a quality teacher, the mostly level 1 student body, and  you have a recipe for failure, the Renewal Schools!

For ATRs, there is one bright spot in the Renewal School saga.  The Chancellor, Carmen Farina, has ordered the DOE not to "force place" ATRs in the Renewal Schools, what a lucky break for us.

Why Can't Renewal Schools Recruit Quality Teachers?

Public Advocate, Latitia James, has called for a probe of the policies affecting the Renewal School program.  She appears most upset about the declining enrollment, lack of resources, poor and costly consultant services, low college ready scores, and lack of quality teachers affecting the Renewal Schools.  This post will touch on only one of the issues, that's the lack of quality teachers.

Since the beginning of the Renewal School program back in 2014.  The Chancellor, Carmen Farina, has been claiming that the DOE will make every effort to encourage "highly effective" teachers to jump ship and join the Renewal Schools.  While the Chancellor talked a good game the results were very disappointing.  Few, if any quality teachers took the Chancellor up on her offer.  Nobody in their right mind would be willing to leave their appointed position to work for the same money while being subject to more accountability, less preparation time, and a stressful school environment in a school that might close three years down the road and find themselves in the ATR pool.

The Chancellor told Chalkbeat how she will be staffing the Renewal Schools with "highly effective"  teachers.  Instead, the only teachers being hired by the Renewal Schools are "newbies".  Just take a look at the article about Automotive High School.  Moreover,  the Chancellor ignored the data and falsely claimed that quality teachers were applying in droves to the Renewal Schools.  I guess to her "newbies" are quality teachers and that the Renewal Schools were  not losing students despite the latest data.  Finally, the DOE has in their school-based "fair student funding" formula discourages the hiring of veteran teachers who have the classroom management skills and deep curriculum knowledge to control an academically struggling school.

Go to most any Renewal High School in the City and you see fewer and fewer veteran teachers as they resign or retire and are replaced by the latest batch of  "newbies"  who are subject to a steep learning curve and usually jump ship through the Open Market Transfer System.  In fact, a study shows that 80% of the "newbie" teachers end up in another school. You can read about some of the Renewal High Schools Here.

The chances the Renewal Schools can attract quality teachers are slim and none unless major  structural changes are made like offering veteran teachers more money, exempt from Danielson, assurances of placement in another school if the Renewal School closes, and autonomy in the classroom without the micromanagement that adds to the stress and is a hallmark of the Renewal Schools.

Teacher Quality And Minority Schools - Its The Student Discipline Issue!

Yesterday Chalkbeat published an article that showed that minority schools have less qualified teachers, suffer from high teacher turnover, lack a Masters degree, and are less likely to be certified in the core subjects.  The report inferred that racism may play a part  in the teacher inequality issue.  However, in my opinion, its about the student discipline policies and not the color of the student's skin that affect teacher quality.

While its hard to ignore the fact that some students grow up with crime, violence, dysfunctional families, and poverty which shows up in the school as student misbehavior.  It doesn't mean that all children disrespect adult authority,  Most students find the school as a "safe haven" and social outlet where they can confide their problems with sympathetic adults.  In fact, it's usually a few students that exhibit continuous disruptive behaviors and interfere with student learning in the classroom.  Even Democratic Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, has in the past called Black kids "Super-predators" and refused to apologize when confronted with that statement this week.  Therefore, it is important for a school to have a firm, fair, but strict discipline policy to dispel the myth of a bad kid.. 

Unfortunately, far too many schools don't have a consistent student discipline policy and a few have subscribed to the failed restorative justice approach that the students think is a joke.  The result is a school out of control and quality teachers will either flee the school at their first opportunity, or leave the profession entirely.  .

If a school is to retain and nurture quality teachers, the administration must have the back of their teachers and not stab the in the back and blame the teacher rather than discipline the student.  A school with a firm, fair, and strict discipline policy and a supportive administration will retain quality teachers no matter the student population.

The Quality Teacher Shortage Is Evident In The New York City Schools Based On The DOE Hiring Policies.

Every parent wants a "quality teacher" for their child and school leaders recognized that.  Therefore, principals, who were themselves long-term teachers, did their best to hire the highly experienced teacher for their schools.  The more experience the teacher had, the better.  The result was that the best schools had the most experienced senior teachers who provided the students with deep curriculum knowledge, classroom management skills, and weren't afraid to adjust their teaching to the learning styles of the ever changing student dynamics of the classroom.  To ensure that there was an incentive for schools to hire the best teachers, the DOE did not use a teacher's salary as part of the school budget but provided the school teacher units, based on the student population size.  Therefore, the schools competed with each other for these highly experienced teachers and the best schools had  the most experienced staff.

All this changed when Mayor Bloomberg took control of the City public schools and appointed a non-educator, Joel Klein, as Chancellor.  Chancellor Klein fundamentally changed the school funding requirements and implemented an "education on the cheap" policy that took funding from the schools and added layers of bureaucracy and increased the historically bloated Central Bureaucracy. With the teacher union approval, Joe Klein instituted the "fair student funding"  that was, in theory, to allow high needs schools to attract experienced teachers with more school funding.  However, the real function of the "fair student funding" was not to give high needs schools the extra money but to punish schools with highly experienced teaching staff by reducing their budget and encourage the schools to find any excuse to have them removed from the school and get budget relief.  The result was an explosion of veteran teachers being removed from their schools and dumped into rubber rooms based on phony or frivolous charges..  To encourage principals to remove these veteran teachers the DOE allowed the school to remove the salary of the teacher from the school payroll after 60 days! This resulted in as many as 805 teachers being "rubberized" as these mostly senior teachers, wait for years before their 3020-a charges are heard or the DOE decides to make a deal.

While many long-term principals were reluctant to remove their veteran teachers realizing the collateral damage it does to staff morale and more importantly, the harm it does to the students.  This was not a problem with the newly minted "Leadership Academy Principals" who made up almost 20% of the City's principals.  Many of these principals had little or even no classroom experience, quite a number never were tenured and had little real understanding of the teaching profession.  To the typical "Leadership Academy Principal" it was that they were CEO's of the school and collaboration with staff was replaced with dictates.  Moreover, this "Leadership Academy Principals" were no longer instructional leaders or mentors but administrators that were the point people of the DOE "gotcha system" whose purpose was to discipline teachers and if possible terminated them by any means possible.

The result of the Bloomberg/Klein changes in the public school system meant that principals were pressured to hire the "cheapest and not the best teachers" for their school.   With 163 schools closed during the Bloomberg era, that excessed thousands of teachers, many of them highly experienced and with little chance of being picked up due to salary considerations.  Combine these excessed teachers with the thousand or so teachers who survived their termination hearings and the DOE has between 1,000 to 3,000 teachers without a classroom.  Many of them "quality teachers".  Instead as we start another school, year, the De Blasio/Farina administration has continued with the "education on the cheap" policy of Bloomberg and Klein which means that its still about hiring the "newbie" rather than the "quality teacher".

An Open Letter To Amiee Horowitz From A Discontinued Teacher.

 In my previous posts I have written about Superintendent Amiee Horowitz and how she has protected school administrators while going after whistle blowers.  If you need a refresher you can find the posts Here, Here, and Here.  Moreover, as Superintendent of the Renewal schools her mission is to terminate as many teachers as possible and replace them with "newbies" as these school will continue to struggle.  Now with the permission of the discontinued teacher, I will post that teacher's letter to Amiee Horowitz to appeal for his job.  Maybe Ms. Horowitz will do the right thing and overrule the Principal and give the two teachers a second chance but her history shows otherwise.  In fact, the new Solidarity caucus will be picketing her office at the end of August due to her anti-teacher bias, especially for whistle blowers.

July 19^th, 2015

Dear Ms. Horowitz,

Hello Ms. Horowitz I am making one final request that you would kindly find some time in your schedule either this month or next where we would have the opportunity to briefly meet in your Staten Island office and discuss my situation. If you are unwilling to meet with me, or if I don’t hear back from you, then I’m not going to pursue this matter. I am in the process of moving on with my life, and my career. I am making this request to hopefully meet because I am in a somewhat depressed state as I look back at the four years that I’ve been teaching in the DOE at Richmond Hill, and all the experiences that I’ve had. I had initially planned on spending the rest of my teaching career in the city schools, and it’s very hard for me to accept the fact that’s it’s ended on a note like this after only four years of service. I just got married so it’s also been a disruption to the life of my spouse as well.

Ms. Horowitz as I mentioned to you in the last email, I understand that you are/were in the unfortunate position where you felt that you had to discontinue a certain number of teachers. I do not believe that the high volume of candidates up for tenure and the number of discontinuances that you had to grant and/or look over in a relatively short time allowed you to spend adequate time evaluating each person’s portfolio and statistics in their entirety. Ms. Horowitz I always look for the best in people, and I hope to believe that you are a decent person, and that you will do what’s fair and proper. This is why I believe that a visitation is so essential. Even if you are unwilling to reverse your decision on my behalf…at least you will have all the facts. 

With this letter I have attached a letter of recommendation that Mr. Ganesh wrote for me last year. I have also attached my observation reports from 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. I have attached my observational ratings under the Danielson system from last year 2013-2014. My overall score last year under this new system was a “77” I was “effective” in all three categories of local and state measurement.  I had wanted to achieve tenure very badly and (although most of us were granted extensions at the end of last year) I was willing to work all the more harder this year. 

Ms. Horowitz, the final piece of documentation that I have attached is my initial rating from this year where I scored a “2” out of “60” points. Ms. Horowitz with all due respect you must have questioned the gross inconsistency and believability of this score when evaluating my performance this year as compared to the last three years as something would appear seriously wrong. 

Ms. Horowitz at this point in time I have nothing to gain or lose by being truthful about my situation, and I am not going to misrepresent the facts or tell somebody simply what they want to hear. It is the very strong opinion of myself and others) that this year Mr. Ganesh felt that he needed to give a certain number of teachers poor ratings in order to increase the school’s statistics as well as for the protection of his own job security. Whatever the reason may be, my colleague and I were chosen as teachers to be targeted with poor ratings consequently leading up to both of our discontinuances. (Just like me, my colleague was also an effective teacher with a previously unblemished pedagogical record prior to the arrival of Ms. Peterson.) On numerous occasions Mr. Ganesh and Ms. Peterson (mostly Ms. Peterson) were dishonest in their accounts of what took place in my classroom during the observations. (I can very easily substantiate this claim by offering numerous sources of evidence.)

*I also want to make the point that I am not somebody who is oppositional to receiving poor ratings or feedback from supervisors. Perhaps one of my greatest strengths that I have always valued is being able to grow and self-evaluate based on collaboration and support from staff and supervisors. Unfortunately it was extremely obvious to me and everybody else who was aware of my situation that neither Mr. Ganesh nor Ms. Peterson had any intention of offering that support since their agenda seemed to be focused in precisely doing the opposite.

My next point goes to the heart of my initial argument. *Even if Mr. Ganesh were to see my situation differently which I’m sure would be his first line of defense, then may I offer that there was absolutely no support that was initiated by him and offered to me or my colleague this year.

If Mr. Ganesh truly was of the opinion and had a good faith basis to believe that somehow under very mysterious circumstances I went 180 degrees from being this “dedicated outstanding and fabulous teacher” in which he wrote a glorifying letter of recommendation for..to suddenly mysteriously turning into this incompetent horrific teacher just a short time later….than what measure of support has he offered? The answer is none.

 

*At no point this year was I ever questioned or conferenced in a meeting initiated by Mr. Ganesh regarding “his” perception of the drastic turn that the quality of my lessons were allegedly taking.  *There was never any discussion had between myself and Mr. Ganesh over the possibility of discontinuance. *Every email I sent him addressing my concerns pertaining to my observations was completely ignored by him. *When I complained about the lack of support that I was receiving, and the way that I was being treated by Ms. Peterson, Mr. Ganesh did absolutely nothing nor even acknowledged that he got my complaint. *Other than observations, there was never any classroom visitations conducted by Mr. Ganesh or Ms. Peterson for the purpose of improving instruction. *There was never any modeling or demonstrations done by either of them despite the fact that I asked for this many times throughout the year. *Mr. Ganesh was hardly in my classroom this year. He spent a total of approximately 35 minutes in my classroom this entire year for two observations (one formal and one informal.)  *For the formal observation he spent a total of 15 minutes out of the 47 minutes of the period that he was in my classroom. Yet he spent the entire period in the classroom of other teachers when their formals were conducted. 

Most importantly, the timing of the observations and lack of feedback in a timely manner was a serious issue this year. When you started reviewing our portfolios towards the end of April there were only two observations that were conducted at that time for most people. For me and just about everybody else in my department, the observations themselves only started being conducted in the second half of the school year beginning in the late part of December and concluding by  mid- May. The first observation was written up as entirely “ineffective” but then feedback was given one month later. The second observation which was the formal was conducted at the very end of March and the feedback was again given to me about a month later. The patterns of allowing so much time to elapse absent teacher support in which Ms. Peterson and Mr. Ganesh chose to conduct these observations were in my view extremely unprofessional and non- conducive to any form of growth. *This of course assuming that their opinion about the quality of my lessons is correct.

The last and final point that I wish to make is the working relationship that the ISS department has had with Ms. Peterson this past year. I do not wish to sound slanderous or make any personal attacks, but Ms. Peterson’s attitude towards her staff, lack of knowledge, and unprofessionalism revealed to us all somebody who was highly unqualified to serve in her respective position as AP of ISS. Her substantial lack of knowledge of special education, vindictive nature, and her lack of empathy and abrasiveness towards her staff became the subject of great discussion amongst many staff members as well as students. Richmond Hill has its’ share of problems and the department was/is in need proper and professional leadership to ensure that we “as one” progress in a forward direction. (Not regress.) I say that because you might as well know that half the department is leaving specifically because of her. And the ISS department was a rather large one with close to 20 people. It was of very poor discretion of Mr. Ganesh to appoint her as AP when she had no immediate experience as AP of ISS prior to her appointment which was quite evident to us all in seeing how the department was being so severely mismanaged. 

What really hurts the most about this whole experience is the length that both supervisors were willing to stoop down to when creating this false case against my colleague and me. Never was there any single moment in time this year when either Mr. Ganesh or Ms. Peterson offered any sort of support or guidance. As responsible and dedicated teachers we were the ones who attempted to go to them for support and it absolutely sickens me that our efforts were used against us by them.

Both Ms. Peterson and Mr. Ganesh were well aware of the consistent initiatives that my colleague and I often took when seeking to get support, and right after my first “ineffective” observation that was conducted in December, I became extremely concerned over the arbitrariness and dis-alignment to Danielson that the initial observation contained. Nevertheless I “initiated” weekly support meetings with Ms. Peterson for two purposes. Number 1: to cover my basis, and number 2: to improve instruction. Ms. Peterson ignored my request for several weeks and then finally one month later up until the end of the school year we met for a total of 9 times. I became concerned because despite the arranged visitations there was no feedback of substance being given, and the “ineffectives” just continued coming.  I find it unlikely that the support sessions would have even been offered to us if we had not requested them in the first place considering how late in the year and sporadic the observations were when they were given. Perhaps if we hadn’t made this request, then the discontinuance would have been harder to grant.

It was absolutely disgusting to me beyond believe when I saw attached with the discontinuance letter  Ms. Peterson’s log sheet detailing “her” version of what took place at the meetings which was riddled with inaccuracies and misleading claims (which can easily be substantiated by me) used as evidence against me by her and Mr. Ganesh making it appear as though they offered support but we were just so horrible that their effort was in vein.  *My colleague and I both had several years of nothing but positive records and observational reports. We suddenly and unexpectedly started receiving nothing but ineffective ratings. As far as I know my colleague and I were the only two teachers in the entire ISS department who made arrangements to get weekly support. Despite our weekly visitations we were continuously and consistently rated “ineffective” and subsequently were the only two teachers in the department to be discontinued.

What are the chances of that happening? 

I’m sure Ms. Horowitz that you can appreciate our perception in that there was clearly an ulterior motive had here, and that we see something seriously wrong with what took place this year. I personally am having a tremendously (tremendous is a gross understatement) hard time believing that the actions of Mr. Ganesh and Ms. Peterson were undertaken in good faith.

I’ll even entertain the benefit of the doubt for a moment. Even if there was no wrong doing here, perhaps our scenarios are a testament to and speak volumes about the levels of incompetence displayed and inability in the proper coaching and mentorship of those in need exhibited by Mr. Ganesh and Ms. Peterson this entire year that just passed.

Ms. Horowitz, in conclusion I just want to mention that despite this very bad year, my experiences in my school have been positive for the vast majority of the time in the last four years that I’ve been there. I have had the pleasure of working with very good people. I have a tremendous respect for the majority of those in my line of work who are genuinely interested in changing the lives and minds of young people. Although my experience this year was not good, I am absolutely convinced that I consistently acted and displayed a level of professionalism, dedication, willingness to learn and grow, and deep commitment to my students and staff of whom I work with. Unfortunately this was not reciprocated. Of course I feel that my rating this year should be erased from my record (I am presently fighting to have that happen) and I should be re-appointed with tenure. Assuming that’s not going to me case, I would like to at least be granted another year of probation. This will make the process of leaving Richmond Hill and securing a position elsewhere exponentially easier. I also think that there should be at minimum an inquiry directed at Mr. Ganesh for his role and compliance in this situation. When examining all of the evidence we all just can’t help but believe that Mr. Ganesh knowingly and deliberately violated his position of power by intentionally misusing the Danielson framework to achieve personal gain. Ms. Peterson was complicit in his act. What has me deeply concerned, is that if he was willing and able to do this to us, then I see no reason why they’re not willing to do it to other teachers in the future.

If none of the above happen, than I may as well mention that my conscience is absolutely clear in knowing that I was discontinued due to circumstances beyond my immediate control and that I did absolutely everything that I possibility could to protect myself in such unfortunate times. I am happy to report that I have the love and support of those who knew of my situation, and unfortunately I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Ms. Horowtiz, I sincerely hope that you are able to say the same. 

Thank you for your time in reading my letter,

Just a final note.  Richmond Hill has a history of using teachers uncertified in the subject they are teaching in.  The school has over 25 Earth Science classes with no certified Earth Science teacher on staff and many other teachers assigned to subjects that they are not certified in.  How can anyone believe things will get better at this school?

The Quality Teacher Myth In New York City Public Schools.

One of the most important factors for children to maximize their academic potential at school is to have a "quality teacher" instructing them.  While the various interest groups can differ on what makes a successful student, they all agree that a "quality teacher" is instrumental in student academic success. Yet, when we look at the New York City Public School System, we find that their hiring practices and policy discourages the schools from selecting "quality teachers" and forces them to hire the "cheapest and not the best teachers" for their students.  Is it any wonder that the New York City Public school students continue to struggle academically?

While external forces shape the majority of the child's academic development, like poverty, family, and community.  A teacher can make up anywhere from a 1% to 14% difference in a child's academic outcome   Therefore, if a school system really wants to maximize the child's academic potential, they should provide "quality teachers" to these students.  However, in the New York City school system, its "education on the cheap" and the only hiring being done are the "newbies".  For example, there were 6,000 teachers that left the school system last year.  However, few ATRs were hired for these vacancies.  Moreover, experienced teachers who wanted to transfer from their school and had ten or more years of experience, found that other schools were not interested in obtaining their services, despite their stellar record or reputation.  Instead the schools hired "newbie" or untenured teachers, who have a steep learning curve to achieve "quality teacher" status, to fill these vacancies.

The education reform groups and their media allies demand that all teachers be "quality teachers" but when they are presented with the clear evidence that the New York City Public School System is only hiring the "cheapest and not the best teachers" for their students, they remain silent. Better to ignore the inconvenient truth than to address the hypocrisy

The bottom line, until the City requires the DOE to revise their hiring practices and eliminate the "fair student funding" policy, its "education on the cheap" and continued poor student academic outcomes. Just like a snake oil salesman, the DOE will claim its "children first" but in reality its all about the money and not about what's best for the students.

Constant Teacher Turnover Hurts Student Academic Achievement.

 In 2008, the nation suffered an extremely deep recession, the worst since the great depression of 1929.  College graduates found few jobs awaiting them and many turned to the more stable but relatively low paying teaching profession as a stopgap.  Alternative programs such as "Teach For America" (TFA) and for laid off professionals there were the "Teaching Fellows" (TF) programs that funneled them into the teaching profession. Many school districts offered retirement incentives to encourage higher salaried teachers to retire.  The result was that school districts across the country saw a turnover of their teaching staff. However, the teacher turnover had a big downside, the constant teacher turnover hurt student outcomes.

The picture above shows how unstable the teaching profession became, starting in the mid 2000s.  In the 1980s, most teachers viewed teaching as a life-long profession and most teachers had fifteen years of experience, were vested, and looked forward to receiving a pension. However, by the 2000s that changed dramatically, the largest group of teachers only has one year in the profession, not vested, and the majority will not be teaching before they are even vested!  For New York City teachers, 55% of the teachers have left the profession before they actually make it to ten years in 2012 and in 2013, as the recession started to ease, the number of teachers leaving the profession are increasing.

The constant teacher turnover, with inexperienced teachers, many of them not fully certified and subject to a steep learning curve themselves, destabilizes the schools and hurt student academic achievement. Why the media and politicians chose to ignore this just shows that its not what's best for the students but what is best for their ideological allies that counts.

Great Teachers Also Need Tenure Laws To Protect Themseleves From Vindictive Administrators.

The education reformers have redoubled their efforts in trying to eliminate teacher tenure and flush from a victory in  California, which I believe will be reversed on appeal, they and their deep pocketed benefactors (the 1%) have filed a similar lawsuit in New York State.  The premise of the lawsuit in New York State is that the state teacher tenure laws violate the constitution that requires that every student should have an adequate education. This lawsuit is just another attack by the education reformers on the teaching profession and the teacher unions. 

Interestingly, the tenure laws in New York State are more stringent than in California.  For example, it takes three full years of satisfactory ratings before tenure can be granted by the Principal.  Furthermore, the tenure decision can be extended for another year or two if the Principal and teacher agree to do so. In the last year in NYC only 56% of the teachers received tenure, while the rest were either extended or discontinued.  Moreover, the New York State teacher evaluation system will allow for a path for dismissal.  Finally,  once tenure is achieved, the teacher can still be terminated for misconduct or incompetence but gets "full due process rights" by going through a State 3020-a hearing in front of an approved arbitrator who decides the case.

Until a teacher gets tenure, the Principal can terminate a teacher "at will" and its extremely rare for an untenured teacher to win their appeal when terminated.  Chapter Leader Arthur Goldstein wrote about one such case when an untenured teacher went to bat for his students as their IEP's were being violated by the school administration and where not getting the state mandated services they needed.

When I was in the infamous "rubber room", I encountered hundreds of teachers during my stay.  The common theme was that most of the teachers were there because of problems with their principals.  I'm not saying that the teachers were blameless but in many cases the principals were told how to embellish, pervert, and distort the incidence to make it seem serious, just to get the teacher out of the school. It is only when the teacher goes in front of his or her 3020-a arbitrator can the teacher reasonably expect an impartial hearing.  If the DOE had its way, almost 100% of the teachers charged would be terminated, just like that for untenured teachers or teachers who appealed their "unsatisfactory ratings".  

If there wasn't tenure would any teacher stick their neck out and advocate for their students, report wrongdoing, or question policies that appear to hurt the academic achievement of the students?  Few would.  Does one want to go back to the "bad old days" when nepotism, cronyism, and personal likes or dislikes dictated the fate of teachers?  I think not.   One of my friends who was untenured reported Regents cheating to her administration and her satisfactory observations before the cheating report became unsatisfactory after the report and was discontinued since it appears the administration was in on the cheating (in fact SCI was called and confirmed that cheating took place and had the educator removed).  Hopefully, the State Supreme Court will find in her favor and force the DOE to give her job back.

 Nobody wants to work in an environment where any accusation by a student or administrator or the failure to take on extra responsibilities could lead to termination without "due process".  As it is, there will be a teacher shortage in five years and weakening or eliminating teacher tenure will accelerate the pace of good teachers leaving the profession.  Yes, tenure is important if school districts are to attract and retain "great teachers" and do what's best for their students by placing them first.

Its Time To Put Quality Teachers Back Into The Classroom.

As we approach the second semester of the 2013-14 school year, the De Blasio Administration should be working on improving the New York City public schools and start the process to eliminate the Bloomberg education policies that hurt the schools and the students in them.  While Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chancellor Carmen Farina have only been in charge for a month and change does take time.  Their priority should be to do what's best for the student academic outcomes going forward. 

The question is how can we improve student academic achievement for the second semester?  What can be done this semester and will cost little or no extra money and help students improve academically?  My suggestion is to place the 2,000+ ATRs back into the classroom within their District, either as a "push in" teacher, co-teacher, and filling all vacancies with the ATRs.  Since the DOE is paying for the ATRs already, it will only cost a minimal amount of money as schools would need to hire a few more substitute teachers since the ATRs would not be "babysitting" students anymore.  However, the De Blasio administration must include a total hiring freeze, no exceptions, if this is to work.

Yes, some Principals may object to being forced to hire ATRs but its not "what's best for the principals",  its what's best for the students and that means that schools must hire the "best" not the "cheapest" teachers as they have over the Bloomberg last two terms as Mayor.   Furthermore, many of the ATRs are "quality teachers" and are considered "highly qualified" by the "No Child Left Behind" act. 

If the Mayor and Chancellor really want to change things quickly and help the students imporove academically, then let's put the ATRs back in the classroom where they belong.  Doesn't the City's children deserve as many "quality teachers" that they can have instructing them?  I think so.